halls120's characterization of the dynamic is most certainly applicable to some frequent flying FTers who post on FT but don't identify themselves publicly in posts on FT as being TSA employees.

I will chime in here. Personally, and I do not expect or ask anyone to be like me, I have a certain caring or desire to see the positive in all people. Some are harder for which to do this than others, of course, but I do not want to dehumanize people just because I disagree with them or do not understand the reasons they do what they do. They are still people and deserving of the minimal respect that should be afforded all people.

I try make my criticism of the actions of people based on the possibility that they are entrenched within an organization with which my disagreement with policy and procedure is significant. It is often easier to get a job than it is to leave it. Often, the front line employees of a corrupt organization are the last to understand or see its problems, blindly following instructions and working day by day thinking that "what I do is okay and I am doing a good job." I can not criticize this, as it is a normal human condition.

As a frequent traveler, I too, am not an unbiased observer and I will readily admit that. I have a dog in this fight and I can not comment without significant bias and preconceived notion from my own understanding. I see things from my perspective, a perspective that is often at loggerheads with the occasional officious martinets in which I come in contact while traveling.

What we need is a truly unbiased observer. It may only be available in the courts of law or possibly in the courts of general public opinion in which neither the biased TSA nor the biased frequent flying public make the final decision. Our input will certainly be important, but if the decisions are left solely to the antagonistic groups, the solutions will be full of the bias of the group that has the greatest influence in the decision.

It is difficult to seek to move change in a process in which a great number of people are involved in carrying out that process. I would like to think, knowing I might be wrong, that the front line people of the TSA would just as willingly carry out processes with which we agree if we could indeed get those changes to be implemented as they carry out the ones with which we so adamantly disagree. They will still want to make their bosses happy. We just need to work toward changing those policies and procedures that the bosses want implemented. It can be done, but I suspect they will be brought to it kicking and screaming.

Let me further note that 1) I don't pretend to speak for all FT posters who take positions against TSA, and 2) just because I may personally respect some TSA employees who post here for their attempt to explain the stupidity of their organization, don't for a minute think that I have abandoned my complete and utter disdain for their organization. In fact, my disdain is growing.

TSA is a disgusting stain upon the fabric of our Republic. Under the guise of providing improved security - which they laughably don't - TSA has become a blunt instrument of overbearing thugs that have found a home in an organization that believes that citizens of this country are subservient vassals of the federal government.

Just wanted to make sure my views are perfectly clear.

Going back to the original discussion of Risked Based Screening, what is the likelihood that TSA can define Risk?

One can disagree with or disrespect an organization without disrespecting line individuals. There are a great number of citizens that disagree with the war in Afghanistan (see the polls), but most of those will respect the soldiers for serving.

So, yes, there are TSOs on this site that are generally respected, even if some folks don't agree with the point of view. There are others - by virtue of their tone, attitude, or "power trip" that are not.

+1

As I posted elsewhere, I had the misfortune of ending up in a very poorly managed, low morale, dysfunctional organization for a time. Folks outside the organization slammed it all the time. I didn't take it personally because they were right. We had the worst manager I've ever worked for and some very bad employees. But we also had a small number of good folks.

If someone criticized the organization, it's management, or specific actions taken (or not) by some of our 'bad apples', I admitted it, rolled my eyes and shrugged. They weren't criticizing me, it wasn't my performance that was a problem, so why make myself out a fool by trying to defend the indefensible?

Or suggesting that folks with complaints were whiners, liars, attention-seekers, impossible to please, unable to understand because the organization had secret SSI reasons for screwing up....

Bolding mine: I can't and won't as it would out them but there are several here who have communicated with me both publicly and privately wrt my orthopedic shoes "issue" (to name one subject) and have been extremely (n.b. extremely) helpful (not in terms of trying to game the system as in the case of safety, that is something I would not want at all, but rather correcting me if I was wrong or complimenting me if I was right and pointing me in the right direction to public (n.b. public) documentation which makes my travel easier).

TSA defines and re-defines 'risk' every day.

"Risk" is gentle old women with wet diapers, little children, elderly war vets, folks in wheelchairs, anyone who doesn't grovel enough when called to do so, anyone with goodies properly secured, anyone with a camera or recording device, anyone who doesn't make eye contact with a BDO (kinda hard to do when you're in a toilet stall and the BDO's still grilling you), being late for your break or your hours of mandatory weekly playtime, er, training.

Conversely. "No-risk" is anyone in a TSA uniform, anyone the TSO knows personally, any camera-free zone (baggage screening?).

For many TSOs, "risk" is anything that interferes with what they want to do or how they want to do it. It has little to do with aviation security.

Yeah, that is the problem isn't it?

I agree with you, but from the other side of the fence. I simply cannot understand how people who seem well intentioned, intelligent, are reasonably (such as yourself) to excellently restrained (gsoltso comes to mind) in their interchanges even on these occasionally inflammatory forums, everything you'd want in a TSA screener, I simply cannot understand how persons of this type think it anything other than reprehensible to force the current choice upon people to be strip searched or felt over the way they are, with intimate carressing type contact of buttocks, sex organs and hair on those persons, many of whom have an emotional reaction close to being raped.

Because these TSA people close their minds to this reality, to this real damage they do to people, IMO, I cannot respect them. I would like to, because they seem otherwise eminently respectable.

This is not a political debate where things are murky and the right way to proceed cannot be expected to be agreed upon by everyone. This is a real and continuing damage being inflicting on young women, boys, and adults who simply want to travel in peace.

+1

It's so difficult to see how someone can look at the faces of some of these elderly folks and women leaving the grope with tears and think that it's OK.

It's difficult to see how someone can watch our freedoms and rights being eroded in the name of 'security' and think that it's OK because they're on the 'winning' side.

So the churches who do the lutefisk dinners are run by terror cells. Mmmmm, I don't think so. Well, what would I know, I don't go to them, even for the meatballs they offer as an alternative.

I need to again repeat.. not all of us are confronted with that choice.... I've never used or been in an AIT...my site has none
I've more or less been barred from advancement, so no resolution pat-downs for me...
etc.

Some of us have the luck of avoiding some of the issues... so far.

Okay, but what if your job was like thousands of law abiding citizens that have to run this gauntlet to get to work? The pilots have a union and can now opt out of these indecencies. Why can't the rest of us? Would you continue in your job if treated like a normal law abiding passenger (fare)?